"The tragedy of the Lebanese federalists is not only in their diagnosis of the wrong problem but in providing the wrong solution. Lebanon needs the antidote of concentrated federal power after all the abuse received by its citizens. What the country desperately needs is for the people to retain their rights that devolve power to each citizen. What Lebanon wants is a Bill of Rights to deliver on decentralization, not more federalization, which would constitutionalize sectarian abuse and quite possibly lead to Balkanization."
Lately, Lebanese television has been parading Federalists to present their plan for getting the nation out of its current calamity. Contrary to its name, which tends to imply unification, the Federalists are actually proposing the cantonization of the country into as much as a dozen or more cantons based purely on religious grounds. They justified their position based on “studies” that they conducted, in which they concluded that Lebanon had different ethnic and religious “cultures”. In their minds, these are irreconcilable, because of a hegemon, Hezbollah, controlling the nation. Since they do not want conflict, they are recommending Constitutional partitioning, which they disingenuously are calling Federalism. Their hope is that it leads to nirvana. The fear of many is that it leads to Balkanization.
But before we delve into any plans, it is worthwhile to ask what exactly is the problem in Lebanon that merits their recommendation of Federalism? If the problem is a concentration of power, then federalization usually is the epitome of concentrated power not a dissolution of it. Indeed, if we look at history, federalization usually unites different regions or factions under a single governing umbrella; and it does it for different reasons:
Federalization unites to draw economic efficiency: Differing regions might not be coordinating well, or commerce is not functioning because of absence of lack of standards, or infrastructure is not being built. A better coordination of effort and pooling of resources is therefore required, which justifies a typical federalization process. This first modern one occurred in the United Stated after independence in 1776. The ensuing loose confederation was a first attempt and did not work well with commercial issues quickly emerging with contradicting state interests. Federalism was used to address such inefficiencies and be the ultimate arbiter. The question here is: Given that Lebanon is already a united nation, but operating with gross inefficiencies, how exactly is partitioning it into several states going to increase economic efficiencies, especially at a time when the state is dysfunctional and in default as is?
Federalization leads to a concentration of power: A federation takes power from its parts and governs over all of them. Federations typically have a single army, a single foreign policy, an overarching set of laws and institutions, including a single monetary policy. This concentration of power has both internal as well as external repercussions. Internally, it creates more consistency and standardization, while externally it creates more presence. Notwithstanding the economic power of nations like Germany, France, and Italy, many in Europe half a century ago felt that they could not strategically compete against large powers such as the United States, Russia, and China, unless they established a federation that joined all of their individual but insufficient efforts together. Today the European Union has a President and Parliament that does most of the negotiations on behalf of its member states with the other global powers. If the diagnosis in Lebanon is that there is too much power in the hands of one party, Hezbollah, how exactly is concentrating more power in a federation going to help resolve the situation? In trying to federalize, will the Lebanese federalists accidentally increase the power of the central government rather than decrease it, or will I make no difference at all because de facto Lebanon is sectarian-federalized?
The third is social cohesion: A federation attempts to pull together differing factions into a common core, delivering a sense of belonging to something bigger than one’s own. Russia and China both created a strong sense of national cohesion to withstand the centrifugal forces at the edge of their vast empires. In that sense, federation creates a narrative—regardless of it being real or concocted—which unites and brings about cohesion and nationalism. What kind of nationalist narrative would exist if Lebanon were to be divided in religious enclaves? Are the Lebanese federalists really federalizing or are they Balkanizing?
Lebanese Federalists fail to justify all three of the above key elements of federalization.
Economically, proposing to federalize Lebanon at a time when it is bankrupt is wishful thinking at best. Indeed, to establish all the required federal and state institutions is currently as impractical as it is inefficient for a nation of Lebanon’s size and economic conditions. For example, they proposed creating judiciaries in each of the to-be established dozen or so states. Who exactly is to pay for this at a time when the judiciary in Lebanon literally does not have resources to turn electricity on or buy paper? Establishing parliaments and councils, constitutions laws, etc … are all extremely costly endeavors. Who is to fund them? And even if that were to miraculously happen, there is no mention of who and how all established states would agree to pay their portions, and what happens if they don’t. Economic costs should not be underestimated or diminished, especially not in view of what recently happened post-Brexit with the UK exiting the EU costing hundreds of $Billions more than estimated, which the people would ultimately have to pay. Are the Lebanese people willing to undertake such an exorbitant endeavor when they can barely make their daily ends meet?
Politically, what the Federalists are proposing seems to be intuitively the exact opposite of what they themselves are diagnosing to be the problem, which is a concentration of power. At this point, they admit that Lebanon’s power is split by sects, controlled by a handful of sectarian leaders. Wouldn’t federalizing cause this concentration of power to become even worse by essentially Constitutionalizing this illegal and unpatriotic practice? And even if their diagnosis of the problem is that all of Lebanon’s ills are due to Hezbollah’s imbalance of power, why would federalization change this dynamic? Some would argue that the contrary could end up happening by handing the power reigns over to them. Besides, come partition time, what guarantees that they wouldn’t claim the lion’s share? India and Pakistan are still disputing Kashmir well over seven decades after partition. Lebanese federalists might need to be asked whether they think in drawing maps, who is likely to have the upper hand: An academic pen or a keen sword?
As for social cohesion, the Federalists assume that the Lebanese people only see themselves defined as purely religious communities. In reality, the Lebanese and their ancestors are among the most socially mobile people in the history of mankind, traversing the globe for millennia, and being invaded by empires for most of history. Globalization is embedded in the DNA and so is coexistence. It is no accident that it was named a “message” by Pope John Paul II. Are we now being asked to burn this message and our social cohesion with a false notion security coming from deluded religious segregation? Are we to go back five centuries, when others in our region have started looking five ahead? If anything, Lebanon desperately needs to eliminate sectarianism not to federalize it into the Constitution. I think our youth expects more from this type of tribalized religious thinking, and indeed they are way ahead of the federalists as proven by an increase in inter-marriage occurring all over the nation among all sects.
The tragedy of the Lebanese federalists is not only in their diagnosis of the wrong problem but in providing the wrong solution. Lebanon needs the antidote of concentrated federal power after all the abuse received by its citizens. What the country needs is for the people to retain their rights that devolve power to each citizen. What Lebanon wants is a Bill of Rights to deliver on decentralization, not more federalization, which would constitutionalize sectarian abuse and quite possibly lead to Balkanization. Watching the kaleidoscopically colorful maps of the proposed religious enclaves, along with the proposal that it would drive social cohesion, was as surreal an experience as I've ever had. The only thing missing from the maps shown were the inevitable thirty-foot walls, which unfortunately appears to be what is equally separating Lebanese federalists from reality.
